Is it a sin to question the teachings of the CC?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Padraig1972
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Padraig1972 said:
As some of you have seen in another thread here, i do in these question these matters:
  • Is the Catholic church or the Orthodox church the true origin church?
  • Who of them has the oldest and most untouched liturgy?
  • Why do i get a more sense of holyness in the divine orthodox liturgy?
  • Do i offend God, Lord Jesus Christ, Blessed Pope Benedict XVI, Blessed Virgin Mary
    and all the saints?
Do i commit a grave sin by doubting like i do now? This has been clouding my mind for the last two weeks. I need to talk to my priest for sure, but how bad is this?
Click to expand...
I personally don’t think you’re asking the right questions at all. Catholicism is disintegrating, there’s pedophile priests and the bishops who cover up child abuse, politically ambitious bishops who threaten politicans, bishops who threaten parishioners for dissenting against traditionalist priests, the Church’s overemphasis on abortion, its history of discrimination against women, Cistercian monks becoming Zen masters – and you’re concerned about the historicity of the papacy? Catholicism isn’t Christ’s Church - because Christ promised to tend to his sheep but in today’s church there are no sheperds due to the paucity in vocations as a result of the authoritarian centralization that is the Roman Catholic Church. As a result, the 99 sheep are left to wander while the one faithful remains.
 
When i made this thread: i did not intending for bashing of the church, the priests, the teaching or any parishes. Answers as the one above, is just so sad and not very nice at all to all of those who work their hardest every day.

My doubts should not been taking to credit for any of what you wrote, actually the words offends me greatly and i will pray for you and those being hard in their hearts today.

I am suffering through all of this, i feel a great kind of sorrow inside and the “what to do now” is there, all present.
 
Big_Chris said:
I personally don’t think you’re asking the right questions at all. Catholicism is disintegrating, there’s pedophile priests and the bishops who cover up child abuse, politically ambitious bishops who threaten politicans, bishops who threaten parishioners for dissenting against traditionalist priests, the Church’s overemphasis on abortion, its history of discrimination against women, Cistercian monks becoming Zen masters – and you’re concerned about the historicity of the papacy? Catholicism isn’t Christ’s Church - because Christ promised to tend to his sheep but in today’s church there are no sheperds due to the paucity in vocations as a result of the authoritarian centralization that is the Roman Catholic Church. As a result, the 99 sheep are left to wander while the one faithful remains.
Click to expand...
I wouldn’t say that the Catholic Church is disintegrating, nor that the scandals which are besetting her can prove one way or another that the Catholic Church is or is not the true church. All communities are bound to be rocked by scandal and change at some point, be they the puritan congregationalists, the Orthodox, the Catholics, or even the Amish.
 
Big_Chris said:
I personally don’t think you’re asking the right questions at all. Catholicism is disintegrating, there’s pedophile priests and the bishops who cover up child abuse, politically ambitious bishops who threaten politicans, bishops who threaten parishioners for dissenting against traditionalist priests, the Church’s overemphasis on abortion, its history of discrimination against women, Cistercian monks becoming Zen masters – and you’re concerned about the historicity of the papacy? Catholicism isn’t Christ’s Church - because Christ promised to tend to his sheep but in today’s church there are no sheperds due to the paucity in vocations as a result of the authoritarian centralization that is the Roman Catholic Church. As a result, the 99 sheep are left to wander while the one faithful remains.
Click to expand...
Really?
themediareport.com

Shalom
God bless
 
Peter_J said:
Who is “you” referring to? I doubt any of us were even aware of it till you mentioned it. Who here was defending it?
Click to expand...
Hi Peter,

Between aragonjohn’s question (Really*?*) and the link he posted, which dealt with the media’s coverage of the unfortunate sexual abuse crisis - as if to suggest something to the contrary - I interpreted these factors as implicitly making a scapegoat out of the media’s coverage. It is another instance of the pious willing to be a “martyr” for the institution rather than the individual. While I am sure that all of hearts go out to the victims of this tragedy like the one I posted about, attempting to pin blame on media coverage doesn’t heal the wounds which have unfortunately been inflicted time and time again. One doesn’t have to be aware of this one particular instance which I linked to in order to see the pandemic.
 
I see. I guess it’s possible that aragonjohn was defending “this” – I can’t say one way or the other, b/c I haven’t clicked on the link he provided.
 
It is entirely possible for a Catholic to become Orthodox and vice-versa. This does happen and happens all the time. One of our parish priests actually became Orthodox not too long ago. Arguments about Peter the Rock etc. aren’t going to cut it since Peter’s authority, in Orthodoxy, rests on several Sees which Peter himself founded.

The fact is that Peter ONLY founded one See in the West. He founded others in the East. So the idea that the Orthodox reject Peter is . . . wrong. They do not. They also have a different idea as to how the Petrine Ministry is to be exercised as well as by whom.

I hope our OP here does not leave the Catholic Church and, instead, would opt for an EC Church.

In the words of the Monk of the Eastern Church Fr. Lev Gillet when he decided to formally become Orthodox - " I don’t go to a different light, but to a clearer light."

It would be disappointing to us Catholics to have you leave. But you would leave with our prayers and our love.

Alex
 
When a Catholic joins a non-Catholic Christian church or ecclesial community, schism and heresy are, at least materially, committed.

SCHISMATIC. According to Church law, a schismatic is a person who, after receiving baptism and while keeping the name of Christian, pertinaciously refuses to submit to the Supreme Pontiff or refuses to associate with those who are subject to him. The two factors, submission to the Pope and association with persons subject to him, are to be taken disjunctively. Either resisting papal authority or refusing to participate in Catholic life and worship induces schism, even without further affiliation with another religious body. Like heresy, schism is formal and culpable only when the obligations are fully realized.

HERESY … Anyone who, after receiving baptism, while remaining nominally a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith is considered a heretic. Accordingly four elements must be verified to constitute formal heresy; previous valid baptism, which need not have been in the Catholic Church; external profession of still being a Christian, otherwise a person becomes an apostate; outright denial or positive doubt regarding a truth that the Catholic Church has actually proposed as revealed by God; and the disbelief must be morally culpable, where a nominal Christian refuses to accept what he knows is a doctrinal imperative. Objectively, therefore, to become a heretic in the strict canonical sense and be excommunicated from the faithful, one must deny or question a truth that is taught not merely on the authority of the Church but on the word of God revealed in the Scriptures or sacred tradition. Subjectively a person must recognize his obligation to believe.

HERETIC. A person professing heresy. Ecclesiastical law distinguishes between a formal heretic, as one who is sinfully culpable, and a material heretic, who is not morally guilty for professing what may be objectively heretical doctrine.

== Modern Catholic Dictionary
 
Standing up for what is right constitutes “threatening politicians”? Are the bishops supposed to sit back and pretend everything is all right?

How can you have “overemphasis” on the fact that millions of unborn babies are murdered every year? How many more would it have to be before you think it’s worthy of mention?

Please prove your statement about the cause of the lack of vocations. Everything I’ve seen shows an INCREASE in vocations in dioceses that are faithful to the Magisterium.
Big_Chris said:
I personally don’t think you’re asking the right questions at all. Catholicism is disintegrating, there’s pedophile priests and the bishops who cover up child abuse, politically ambitious bishops who threaten politicans, bishops who threaten parishioners for dissenting against traditionalist priests, the Church’s overemphasis on abortion, its history of discrimination against women, Cistercian monks becoming Zen masters – and you’re concerned about the historicity of the papacy? Catholicism isn’t Christ’s Church - because Christ promised to tend to his sheep but in today’s church there are no sheperds due to the paucity in vocations as a result of the authoritarian centralization that is the Roman Catholic Church. As a result, the 99 sheep are left to wander while the one faithful remains.
Click to expand...
 
Could you explain how pointing out media bias equals defending abuse? I’m sure I’m not the only person here who doesn’t see the equivalency.
Big_Chris said:
At the risk of going off topic and receiving a warning from the mods:

I’m concerned that you choose to defend this.
Click to expand...
 
Vico said:
When a Catholic joins a non-Catholic Christian church or ecclesial community, schism and heresy are, at least materially, committed.

SCHISMATIC. According to Church law, a schismatic is a person who, after receiving baptism and while keeping the name of Christian, pertinaciously refuses to submit to the Supreme Pontiff or refuses to associate with those who are subject to him. The two factors, submission to the Pope and association with persons subject to him, are to be taken disjunctively. Either resisting papal authority or refusing to participate in Catholic life and worship induces schism, even without further affiliation with another religious body. Like heresy, schism is formal and culpable only when the obligations are fully realized.

HERESY … Anyone who, after receiving baptism, while remaining nominally a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith is considered a heretic. Accordingly four elements must be verified to constitute formal heresy; previous valid baptism, which need not have been in the Catholic Church; external profession of still being a Christian, otherwise a person becomes an apostate; outright denial or positive doubt regarding a truth that the Catholic Church has actually proposed as revealed by God; and the disbelief must be morally culpable, where a nominal Christian refuses to accept what he knows is a doctrinal imperative. Objectively, therefore, to become a heretic in the strict canonical sense and be excommunicated from the faithful, one must deny or question a truth that is taught not merely on the authority of the Church but on the word of God revealed in the Scriptures or sacred tradition. Subjectively a person must recognize his obligation to believe.

HERETIC. A person professing heresy. Ecclesiastical law distinguishes between a formal heretic, as one who is sinfully culpable, and a material heretic, who is not morally guilty for professing what may be objectively heretical doctrine.

== Modern Catholic Dictionary
Click to expand...
There certainly can be no doubt that switching sides is not something to be taken lightly – just ask any Orthodox what they think of an ex-Orthodox who becomes Catholic.
 
I am well aware of this. If one converts, it is a big step and all these kind of choices in life has their consequences.

But i don`t want it to be any different. The bottom line is: if this is a sin, i will repent and ask the Lord for forgiveness every day for as long as it takes.
 
Peter_J said:
There certainly can be no doubt that switching sides is not something to be taken lightly – just ask any Orthodox what they think of an ex-Orthodox who becomes Catholic.
Click to expand...
Padraig1972 said:
I am well aware of this. If one converts, it is a big step and all these kind of choices in life has their consequences.

But i don`t want it to be any different. The bottom line is: if this is a sin, i will repent and ask the Lord for forgiveness every day for as long as it takes.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t directing that at you specifically. There are some out there who don’t see it that way – I hate when people say things like “I converted from Orthodoxy to Catholicism b/c we’re pretty much the same.”
 
Padraig1972 said:
As some of you have seen in another thread here, i do in these question these matters:
  • Is the Catholic church or the Orthodox church the true origin church?
  • Who of them has the oldest and most untouched liturgy?
  • Why do i get a more sense of holyness in the divine orthodox liturgy?
  • Do i offend God, Lord Jesus Christ, Blessed Pope Benedict XVI, Blessed Virgin Mary
    and all the saints?
Do i commit a grave sin by doubting like i do now? This has been clouding my mind for the last two weeks. I need to talk to my priest for sure, but how bad is this?
Click to expand...
I don’t know that “sin” is the appropriate tag for the phenomena you seem to be caught up in. Certainly, if it is causing you such anxiety, then you should be talking to a priest about it, in or out of the sacrament of confession. Your properly catechized and formed conscience should be your guide. Unless you are violating your ow conscience in your quest, I don’t believe you sin. The CC doesn’t really believe there is any reason for you to leave, and in fact, the CC is so…ready to have our Eastern brothers and sisters united with us under Rome again, and vice versa, that it’s possible you could wind up becoming EO, then find yourself back under Rome within your lifetime. There really are no issues left which have any teeth. The CC wants to allow EO liturgy, and the elders and patriarchs of the EO share in most CC theology.

There’s a long, but quite interesting article at New Advent here: newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm In the end, it looks like there is nothing but a bit of entropy keeping us apart now. The EO need to simply understand that Rome doesn’t wish to hamper the divine liturgy.

There are already Eastern rites within the CC. Many, as a matter of fact. I will assume you’ve looked at all those, and found them to be lacking in something you’re looking for?

Just keep praying. Speak to your priest, (or even your Bishop, if you can get an audience). I can see this is a large issue with you. But please don’t torture yourself with the perceived burden of sin over matters or questioning. We were given minds and wills by our God. Just pray for God’s will for you, and if you are already a confirmed Catholic, then you are to be obedient to your ordinary, (your Bishop). Your journey sounds like it may take you that far. I will pray for you. I hope you find that you can remain in the CC. Even if you decide on an Easter Rite parish.

May God bless you in your journey,

Steven
 
Vico said:
When a Catholic joins a non-Catholic Christian church or ecclesial community, schism and heresy are, at least materially, committed.

SCHISMATIC. According to Church law, a schismatic is a person who, after receiving baptism and while keeping the name of Christian, pertinaciously refuses to submit to the Supreme Pontiff or refuses to associate with those who are subject to him. The two factors, submission to the Pope and association with persons subject to him, are to be taken disjunctively. Either resisting papal authority or refusing to participate in Catholic life and worship induces schism, even without further affiliation with another religious body. Like heresy, schism is formal and culpable only when the obligations are fully realized.

HERESY … Anyone who, after receiving baptism, while remaining nominally a Christian, pertinaciously denies or doubts any of the truths that must be believed with divine and Catholic faith is considered a heretic. Accordingly four elements must be verified to constitute formal heresy; previous valid baptism, which need not have been in the Catholic Church; external profession of still being a Christian, otherwise a person becomes an apostate; outright denial or positive doubt regarding a truth that the Catholic Church has actually proposed as revealed by God; and the disbelief must be morally culpable, where a nominal Christian refuses to accept what he knows is a doctrinal imperative. Objectively, therefore, to become a heretic in the strict canonical sense and be excommunicated from the faithful, one must deny or question a truth that is taught not merely on the authority of the Church but on the word of God revealed in the Scriptures or sacred tradition. Subjectively a person must recognize his obligation to believe.

HERETIC. A person professing heresy. Ecclesiastical law distinguishes between a formal heretic, as one who is sinfully culpable, and a material heretic, who is not morally guilty for professing what may be objectively heretical doctrine.

== Modern Catholic Dictionary
Click to expand...
Dear Vico,

I know Roman Catholics who became Orthodox. Having spoken with them, I can assure you they no longer considered themselves to be Roman Catholic and affirmed that it was Rome that was both in heresy and in schism from the true Church.

I don’t know how they can be said to be morally culpable in schism since they came to the conclusion Rome was in the wrong. Perhaps they are, but that is up to a higher Court than us to decide.

And I don’t see how Rome can say all the nice things it does about the Orthodox church and still claim it is “schismatic.” Rome doesn’t use that term any longer with respect to the Orthodox (thank heavens). And Rome doesn’t think that the Unias it created over the centuries was its “finest hours.” Pope Benedict himself was reported telling a Russian Orthodox prelate that contemporary Catholics have inherited the EC churches, that they were created a long time ago etc. etc. I don’t have the report handy, but it was widely circulated in our local press two years ago.

It could very well be that the ultimate destiny of the EC churches would be to reunite with Orthodoxy and therefore cancel the ecclesial abnormality that others say we are.

Alex
 
StevenFrancis said:
in fact, the CC is so…ready to have our Eastern brothers and sisters united with us under Rome again, and vice versa, that it’s possible you could wind up becoming EO, then find yourself back under Rome within your lifetime.
… There really are no issues left which have any teeth.
… the elders and patriarchs of the EO share in most CC theology.
… In the end, it looks like there is nothing but a bit of entropy keeping us apart now.
… The EO need to simply understand that Rome doesn’t wish to hamper the divine liturgy.
Click to expand...
I can only imagine what the Orthodox think when they read this sort of propaganda.

:o
 
Alexander_Roman said:
Dear Vico,

I know Roman Catholics who became Orthodox. Having spoken with them, I can assure you they no longer considered themselves to be Roman Catholic and affirmed that it was Rome that was both in heresy and in schism from the true Church.

I don’t know how they can be said to be morally culpable in schism since they came to the conclusion Rome was in the wrong. Perhaps they are, but that is up to a higher Court than us to decide.

And I don’t see how Rome can say all the nice things it does about the Orthodox church and still claim it is “schismatic.” Rome doesn’t use that term any longer with respect to the Orthodox (thank heavens). And Rome doesn’t think that the Unias it created over the centuries was its “finest hours.” Pope Benedict himself was reported telling a Russian Orthodox prelate that contemporary Catholics have inherited the EC churches, that they were created a long time ago etc. etc. I don’t have the report handy, but it was widely circulated in our local press two years ago.

It could very well be that the ultimate destiny of the EC churches would be to reunite with Orthodoxy and therefore cancel the ecclesial abnormality that others say we are.

Alex
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church gives those raised in non-Catholic churches and ecclesial communities the benefit of the doubt so schism and heretic and apostate are not applied in general.

For defection, …it is necessary that there concretely be:a) the internal decision to leave the Catholic Church;
b) the realization and external manifestation of that decision; and
c) the reception of that decision by the competent ecclesiastical authority.
There is no doubt on the issue. The Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith has clarified it a few times.(56) The interpretation of those who would derive from the formula subsistit in the thesis that the one Church of Christ could subsist also in non-Catholic Churches and ecclesial communities is therefore contrary to the authentic meaning of Lumen gentium. "The Council instead chose the word subsistit precisely to clarify that there exists only one "subsistence’ of the true Church, while outside her visible structure there only exist elementa Ecclesiae, which "being elements of that same Church “tend and lead toward the Catholic Church”
(Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Notification on the Book “Church: Charism and Power” by Father Leonardo Boff: AAS 77 [1985], 756-762).

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20000806_dominus-iesus_en.html

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20021124_politica_en.html

ACTUS FORMALIS DEFECTIONIS AB ECCLESIA CATHOLICA***

***vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20060313_actus-formalis_en.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top